Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 January 2020
doi:10.20944/preprints202001.0359.v1
INTERNET OF THINGS IN HEALTHCARE:
The Social, Ethical, Legal & Professional Implications.
Otobong Inieke
Independent Researcher, Department of Computing – Graduate of Middlesex University,
Mauritius Campus.
otobonginieke@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9906-4028
https://devinieke.com.ng
Abstract: Implications of the novel usage adoption of the internet of things in various sectors
of works and life are researched and documented at pace. This is related to the overall high rate
at which new technologies are adopted in modern society. Healthcare is a vital aspect of
everyday activities and as such overlaps with the increasingly important role played by use of
the internet and associated technologies. The purpose of this review article is to draw attention
to the potential social, ethical, legal and professional limitations to using IoT in the context of
healthcare. The social and ethical aspects in particular, focus on IoT usage in care of the elderly
with relevant case studies as reference.
Keywords: Internet of things, healthcare, ethics, data privacy.
Type: Review.
Introduction
In a world with constant advancement in technology, there is the ever present need for
improved transmission of information and better convenience in our interaction with connected
devices. As a concept, the internet of things generally refers to the connection, interaction and
sharing of contextualised data between sensors, devices and systems using the internet with the
aim of increasing efficiency in a given situation (Burgess, 2018). The internet of things, though
in its nascent stages already permeates most of today’s society and can be observed in usecases ranging from home automation systems and fitness trackers to energy management and
healthcare (FTC Staff, 2015). According to (Meola, 2018), by 2020, there will have been
approximately a $6billion investment into the aspects of IoT such as development,
connectivity, integration, security and storage. As far as the benefits and potential pitfalls of
this emerging technology are concerned, the major stakeholders in this regard are; the
consumers, governments and businesses (Meola, 2018).
© 2020 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 January 2020
doi:10.20944/preprints202001.0359.v1
Though the positive impact of the Internet of Things is profound, there are numerous negative
implications to be considered. There is the implicit knowledge that for the devices making up
an IoT ecosystem, massive amounts of data will be mined for optimal communication between
these devices. This brings up questions surrounding consumer privacy and security of harvested
data (parliament.uk, 2015). The current debates about IoT basically address issues such as;
anonymity when using IoT devices and services, the potential of turning a regular IoT device
into a security or privacy target, consumer awareness of the special capabilities of these IoT
devices and the control of the flow of data between these systems (mhc.ie, 2014).
IoT in healthcare currently incorporates other technologies such as machine learning and big
data. Physicians and related professionals are now, more than ever able to get detailed insights
allowing for precise levels of action to be taken at the point of care (Lee, 2015).
IOT in the Healthcare Industry – Uses & Limitations
Technology based on the internet of things has woven its way into everyday consumer devices
and one aspect of our lives that has also been impacted is healthcare. In recent times, people
have been able to schedule medical appointments and receive tentative advice through
applications on smartphones and devices without calling a hospital, making a trip to the clinic
or waiting a long time for a scheduled meeting (Neelam, 2017). By taking advantage of
connected devices and sensors such as weight scales and blood pressure monitors, patient
information could be viewed and real-time diagnostics could be provided which is potentially
life-saving (ibid. p11). Aside from bed-side monitoring and preventive care, IoT also serves
the healthcare industry through personal care solutions. People use wearable sensors connected
to applications running on personal devices to track activities such as calories burned during
exercise or number of steps taken during a certain period while the applications suggest
possible lifestyle changes to prevent health issues (Miorandi, Sicari, Pellegrini, & Chlamtac,
2012).
Pacemakers and wireless insulin pumps are examples of IoT devices that can pose critical risks
if they are compromised in any way. In this situations, threats to the functionality of such
devices take precedence over breach of data (Choufanni, 2014). In 2011, during a Black Hat
conference, a cyber threat analyst demonstrated the vulnerabilities of healthcare IoT systems.
The analyst who is diabetic, exploited security gaps in his own insulin pump causing it to
respond to a remote control device and also altered the reading on his glucose monitor by
intercepting its wireless signals (Steciw, 2011). Further reports showed that although the device
manufacturers were alerted to the issues uncovered, insufficient action was taken which
prompted two members of the American congress to request a review of the Federal
Communication Commission’s policies regarding wireless devices (Steciw, 2011).
Admittedly, medical IoT devices can be accessed to have their software and firmware updated
with latest anti-malware protections thus preventing or reducing the chances of such incidents.
This is not the case if such devices are implanted, such as pacemakers and artificial pancreases,
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 January 2020
doi:10.20944/preprints202001.0359.v1
this is a serious limitation to the adoption of IoT in certain aspects of healthcare due to the fact
that vulnerabilities in IT are almost always addressed retroactively (Choufanni, 2014).
The lack of fully deployed IoT systems is a key indicator that the technology is still in its early
stages. Examples of problems with the technology itself include the long term effects of
electromagnetic radiation on people and signal strength issues within hospitals (Laplante &
Laplante, 2016). Due to the fact that sensors and devices within the IoT ecosystem are always
connected, it goes without saying that security is of utmost importance to the increased
adoption of the technology within the healthcare industry (Miorandi, Sicari, Pellegrini, &
Chlamtac, 2012). The stakeholders in this context will remain unwilling to adopt IoT in this
domain if there are no guarantees in privacy, trust and authenticity (ibid .p1505).
With the aforementioned guarantees in IoT security, standard requirement for a healthcare
system would in the least include the following; Resistance to malicious attacks in the sense
that single points of failure within the system are to be avoided and the system should also
adjust itself to counter tangential failures; Authentication of data which means that all object
addresses and information transmitted within the system should be authenticated; Control of
access whereby administrators and information providers can setup a level of access control
for data provided and finally privacy measures that only the information provider can deduce
when using an observation interface within the system (Tarouco, et al., 2012). It has been
observed that malicious attackers who focus on mobile devices usually have defined goals such
as taking patient or user information, damaging system resources and even shutting down
critical applications. The many threats around mobile devices in healthcare IoT are basically
derived from regular computing systems which leaves them vulnerable to attacks like
Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) and Routing Diversion Attacks (Tarouco, et al., 2012).
Although IoT in healthcare is still a new concept to many professionals in the industry, its
implementation is inevitable. The advantages are being realised but adaptable systems are yet
to be deployed and the significant obstacles have not been overcome (Laplante & Laplante,
2016).
Ethical Issues
Although the benefits of IoT in healthcare are numerous, it raises ethical issues based on the
vulnerabilities of devices that connect to the internet, the sensitive nature of health related data
and the impact on healthcare delivery (Mittelstadt, 2017). The Internet of things in healthcare
is built to operate within public and private domains. The sensors and devices are carried
around by an individual or situated within environments like hospital wards, a home or a
workplace. These situations create the opportunity for data about an individual’s behaviour or
health status to be collected and analysed by a third party (Mittelstadt, 2017). Although
healthcare is being improved through remote monitoring and quicker response times, the nature
of the technologies involved simultaneously create opportunities for breaching personal or data
privacy.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 January 2020
doi:10.20944/preprints202001.0359.v1
Certain IoT applications are both ethical and unethical depending on the concerned stakeholder,
IoT devices and sensors tend to be forgotten about if they are unobtrusive or discreetly
embedded in an environment. The validity of the user’s consent to be closely observed is eroded
if they forget they are being monitored (Gaskell, 2017). Considering the consequentialist theory
of ethics, which posits that ‘the morally right action is the one with the best overall
consequences (Haines, n.d.)’, the application of IoT in this context is ethical because the user
gave consent to be monitored and the recorded data is analysed for their own well-being. On
the other hand, an individual’s sense of autonomy and privacy is disrupted if they know that
they are constantly monitored (Mittelstadt, 2017). For this reason, the application of IoT in this
context can be debated as unethical because according to deontology, ‘an act is only good if it
conforms to moral rights (Gamlund, 2012)’.
It has also been seen that the way IoT is used in healthcare can impact the delivery of healthcare
services. In a bid to protect a sense of autonomy especially in the elderly, they are provided
with greater power over their own care through the use of less intrusive IoT devices like
bracelets or armbands. This reduces visits from healthcare personnel and can lead to possible
isolation since monitoring can be done remotely (Gaskell, 2017). Following Kant’s beliefs that
“rationality is the ultimate good” and “people are fundamentally rational beings” (Barlow,
2018), it can be argued that the actions toward preserving the sense of autonomy in elderly
people are ethical. Alternatively, the fact that risk of isolation is a major concern of the elderly
in this context, the action can be queried as unethical because according to the utilitarian school
of ethical thought; ‘the moral worth of an action is determined by its contribution to increasing
happiness in people’ (Arpaly, 1998).
Feedback from smart applications can cause users to alter their behaviour to be in line with the
device’s expectation e.g. a smartwatch suggests a calorie drop in diet to lose a certain amount
of weight in a specified time according to its own calculations (Mittelstadt). The question here
is whether the user’s behaviour is altered based on self-interests or to be aligned with the service
that the user agreed to i.e. personalised feedback (ibid.p5). Undermining a user’s autonomy
through product design must be weighed against the perceived benefit meaning the design is
unethical if the user is influenced towards third party interests. On the other end, such influence
is considered ethical if the altered behaviour leads to better health. Utilitarianism supports the
first argument because it is concerned with the outcome of an action which in this case does
not favour the concerned individual (Haines, n.d.) While the subsequent argument is backed
by Deontology which is focused on rationalism and the fact that deciding to take perceived
positive action is good (Alexander & Moore, 2016).
These are but a few ethical challenges that currently plague the rapid adoption of Internet of
Things in the healthcare industry.
Social Issues
Emerging technologies such as IoT can be used to the benefit of society, an example of this is
the ‘Smarter Living’ project being run by IBM in the city of Bolzano Italy. This is a city where
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 January 2020
doi:10.20944/preprints202001.0359.v1
1 in 5 people are over the age of 65. The aim of the project is to help the elderly live better and
longer in their homes while improving the efficiency of caretakers through the use of
technology (IBM.com, 2014). Touchscreens and various interfaces are used to allow the users
request assistance, ambient sensors allow smoke, temperature and humidity levels to be
monitored while personal sensors provide health based telemetry (IBM.com, 2014). These
systems work in tandem to assist the elderly which has the run-off effect of improving their
feelings of self-worth while simultaneously relieving pressure on healthcare services (BCS.org,
2014).
Admittedly, the rapid advancements in IoT related technologies have been beneficial to society
with adoption in healthcare and educational industries, it must also be noted that the technology
also has negative implications (IEEE, 2017). Generally, devices used in healthcare IoT fall
between consumer facing devices for measuring fitness or overall wellness and clinical devices
meant for patients. In most cases, the consumer based devices are built with attractive designs
which intrigues people and is less likely to carry a social stigma such as the Microsoft Band 2
which is a bracelet that tracks calories burned during exercise and sleep patterns (Faulkner,
2016). This is not the same for individuals with medical conditions that require the usage of
health IoT devices. The issue for such an individual is dealing with the stigma that is connected
with using such devices which may in turn be associated with a health or disease condition
(Mittelstadt, 2017).
Following the scenario above, it has been observed that elderly individuals in care homes who
require visible applications of healthcare IoT devices like oxygen masks feel more vulnerable
as this is an indicator of frailty. The devices in such scenarios, affect a person’s ability to control
how they are perceived, therefore the power to manage public identity is eroded (Mittelstadt,
2017). Furthermore, the knowledge that one is being monitored has been seen to negatively
affect the regular behaviour and sense of autonomy of elderly people. The obtrusive nature of
some of the healthcare IoT devices has also been observed to reduce risky behaviours in ageing
users and this is considered negative because such behaviours in elderly people can signify the
desire to maintain independence which is inherently a human characteristic (Percival &
Hanson, 2006).
The societal impact of IoT in healthcare revolves around privacy. The problem comes from the
fact that for a user’s privacy to be protected, the individual must give consent relating to how
information is transmitted between IoT devices and what kind of action is taken by the sensors
and systems. Conversely, the design of IoT in any domain is based on the continuous
interaction between devices with the aim of autonomous or ‘smart’ decision making (Ebersold
& Glass, 2016). Additionally, there is the chance that an individual feels a loss of control due
to the fact that IoT-based data is constantly transferred among other devices and decisions that
can have personal effect are made without the awareness of said individual. Such lack of control
or unwilling participation can lead to the compromise of a person’s sense of freedom (Ebersold
& Glass, 2016).
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 January 2020
doi:10.20944/preprints202001.0359.v1
Legal Issues
Following the rapid development of IoT, the merge between the application of the technology
and the healthcare industry has caused a massive expansion in the scope of medical data.
Furthermore, regulations and legal constructs protecting usage of such data have not kept up
with the technology (Zhu & Zhan, 2017). The problems debated concern data ownership,
appropriate privacy policies, user control and general liability (Cohen, 2016). In 2015, the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) levelled charges of false advertisement against Health
Discovery Corporation (HDC), the promoters of an application called MelApp (Clark, 2015).
The application supposedly assessed the risk of melanoma using image and pattern recognition
algorithms, upon investigation, the FTC found that the claims were false and HDC had violated
Section 5a of the Federal Trade Commission Act which states that ‘unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in or affecting commerce are declared unlawful’ (ftc.gov, 2008).
In relation to data ownership and access, provisions within the recently enforced General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR) strengthens an individual’s right to not only confirm what
information an organisation has on them but access that information as well as any other related
information (Burgess, 2018). The North-eastern University located in Boston, United States,
conducted an experiment involving over 17,000 Android applications, the experiment showed
that over 9,000 of the applications had access to a smartphone’s camera and microphone while
over 8,000 sent screen recordings and app interactions to Facebook and a third party called
AppSee which is a mobile analytics company (Hill, 2018). The above case is an illustration
that shows how easy a third party can gain control of private and potentially impactful
information without the express consent of an individual. According to Article 22.1 of the
GDPR, an individual has the right to not be subject to a decision based solely on automated
processing including profiling. Furthermore, a caveat is included in Article 22.2c which states
that Article 22.1 does not apply if explicit consent is not given (Intersoft Consulting, 2018).
The result of the university’s study shows proof that the actions of the application developers
as well as third parties are legally questionable due to the fact that user of the application may
have given usage consent to the developers but not for the transfer of data to unknown third
parties (Hill, 2018).
As mentioned previously, liability is a source of concern in the application of IoT, the following
are some of the questions that need to be reviewed; who is responsible for updating software
to make sure that IoT devices remain secure, what is the patient’s fate if the medical provider
goes out of business and who is held responsible if the internet connection is lost during medical
application (AboBakhr & Azer, 2017). In a bid to guard against some of this, Article 20.1 of
the GDPR states in part that an individual has the right to request personal data in a ‘structured,
commonly used, machine-readable format’ to be transferred to another service provider
without obstruction (Intersoft Consulting, 2018). Additionally, Section 56.1 of the Data
Protection Act 2018 (DPA) summarily states that a data controller must apply all appropriate
measures to ensure safety and integrity of an individual’s data (legislation.gov.uk, 2018).
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 January 2020
doi:10.20944/preprints202001.0359.v1
Professional Issues
Under the auspices of the GDPR and the DPA 2018, healthcare professionals as well as the
manufacturers of IoT devices used in healthcare have been saddled with the responsibility of
ensuring the integrity of user generated information (Twentyman, 2017). Industry professionals
face solution problems when many devices come through hospitals from various sources, this
makes adoption difficult because the devices rarely have similar operating systems, encryption
protocols or hardware versions (Lee, 2015). A research carried out by SpiceWorks which is an
IT community surveyed about 440 IT professionals and showed that security investment was
not a top priority even though 86% of respondents expected IoT to raise privacy and security
issues (Flinders, 2014). In comment to the study, the IT program manager at SpiceWorks
Kathryn Pribish pointed out that though the industry professionals generally accept the
inevitability of IoT, those who do not prepare sufficiently will be left behind (Flinders, 2014).
Additionally, IT professionals are urged to maintain relevant knowledge of appropriate laws
and regulations when executing responsibilities, this is seen in Section 2.d of the BCS code of
conduct which says that one should know, understand and comply with legislation when
carrying out professional duties (The British Computer Society, 2015). However, professionals
and application developers must make certain that users of their products when giving consent
are completely aware of the extent to which their information will be used (Hill, 2018).
An article published by the Wall Street Journal showed that Return Path Inc., a data marketing
company had employees who read approximately 8,000 emails in order to ‘train’ the
company’s software. Within the same article, Thede Loder the former Chief Technology
Officer of a rival company DataSource Inc., said it has become common practice to let
employees read user emails in such companies (MacMillan, 2018). Further reporting showed
that both companies detailed the practice within user agreements and had strict regulations
concerning read emails, this ultimately lead to a loss in customer trust regardless of the constant
promise of data protection by related internet companies like Facebook and Google (LeFebvre,
2018). Such a situation is an example whereby insufficient communication between IT
professionals and consumers produces unsavoury results. Though the company may have
adhered to Section 1.b of the BCS Code of Conduct which states that one must have due regards
for the rights of a 3rd party (The British Computer Society, 2015), its actions could still be
viewed as unprofessional from the perspective of external stakeholders (the users) because
Section 4.a - which says that personal duty must be upheld and disreputable actions must be
avoided (The British Computer Society, 2015) - was disregarded.
Conclusion
The internet of things is a boon to society, the rapid development and integration into different
parts of our lives has brought improvements. Healthcare is yet to see a full-fledged
implementation of the technology because of the fast moving nature of IoT advancement. The
reality is that society is still trying to grasp the implications of the technology and more
importantly how well it can be leveraged in the safe care of ailing and elderly individuals. The
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 January 2020
doi:10.20944/preprints202001.0359.v1
course of this article has covered the advantages of IoT in healthcare as well as the socio-ethical
implications of its application. Data privacy, legal concerns and aspects relating to
responsibility were also addressed and it has been made obvious that as far as the full potential
of IoT applications in healthcare is concerned, society is yet to scratch the surface.
Acknowledgement
This is to thank all those who provided support in the research, synthesis and completion of
this review article. Ilrshaad Goolamally, my project tutor whose crucial guidance helped with
the initial research focus and structure. Finally, my unending gratitude goes to my elder sister,
Enoh Inieke, for sponsoring my education, without which none of this would be possible.
References
AboBakhr, A., & Azer, M. A. (2017). IoT Ethics Challenges and Legal Issues. Cairo: Nile
University.
Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2016). Deontological Ethics (Winter 2016 ed.). California:
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved July 8, 2017, from
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_deontology.html
Arpaly, N. (1998). In Defense of Deep Virtue Ethics. California: Stanford University.
Retrieved from https://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_utilitarianism.html
Barlow, J. M. (2018). Gale Researcher Guide for: Immanuel Kant. Michigan: Gale, Cengage
Learning. Retrieved from
https://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_kantianism.html
BCS.org. (2014). IoT: Health, ethics, benefits, fears... and more. Retrieved July 8, 2018, from
https://www.bcs.org/content/ConWebDoc/53647
Burgess, M. (2018). What is GDPR? The summary guide to GDPR compliance in the UK.
Retrieved July 10, 2018, from http://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-gdpr-uk-eulegislation-compliance-summary-fines-2018
Burgess, M. (2018). What is the Internet of Things? Wired Explains. Retrieved May 22, 2018,
from http://www.wired.co.uk/article/internet-of-things-what-is-explained-iot
Choufanni, R. (2014). Hospital IT departments fight to keep healthcare BYOD safe.
Retrieved July 20, 2018, from https://searchhealthit.techtarget.com/tip/Hospital-ITdepartments-fight-to-keep-healthcare-BYOD-safe
Clark, D. S. (2015). FTC in the matter of Health Discovery Corporation. Retrieved July 10,
2018, from https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/complaint.pdf
Cohen, M. H. (2016). The Internet of Things (IOT) Legal and Regulatory Issues. Retrieved
July 10, 2018, from https://michaelhcohen.com/2016/01/the-internet-of-things-iotlegal-and-regulatory-issues/
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 January 2020
doi:10.20944/preprints202001.0359.v1
Cuijpers, C., & Koops, B.-J. (2008). The 'smart meters' bill: a privacy test based on article 8
of the ECHR. Tilburg: Tilburg University.
Ebersold, K., & Glass, R. (2016). The Internet of Things: A Cause for Ethical Concern.
Issues In Information Systems, 17(4), 145-151.
Faulkner, C. (2016). Microsoft Band 2: Curves and sensors in all the right places. Retrieved
July 9, 2018, from https://www.techradar.com/reviews/wearables/microsoft-band-21306006/review/4
Flinders, K. (2014). IT departments unprepared for internet of things. Retrieved July 10,
2018, from https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240222183/IT-departments-notpreparing-for-Internet-of-Things-despite-expecting-it
FTC Staff. (2015). Internet of Things - Privacy & Security in a Connected World.
ftc.gov. (2008). A Brief Overview of the Federal Trade Commission's Investigative and Law
Enforcement Authority. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from https://www.ftc.gov/aboutftc/what-we-do/enforcement-authority#N_1_
Gamlund, E. (2012). Ethics. Bergen: University of Bergen.
Gaskell, A. (2017). The Ethics Of IoT Usage In Healthcare. Retrieved July 7, 2018, from
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-ethics-of-iot-usage-inhealthcare_us_58da21c1e4b0e6062d9230b6
Haines, W. (n.d.). Consequentialism. Retrieved August 6, 2019, from
https://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/
Hill, K. (2018). These Academics Spent the Last Year Testing Whether Your Phone Is
Secretly Listening to You. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from https://gizmodo.com/theseacademics-spent-the-last-year-testing-whether-you-1826961188
IBM.com. (2014). Smarter Care in Bolzano. Retrieved July 9, 2018, from
https://www.ibm.com/blogs/emerging-technology/projects/smarter-care-in-bolzano/
IEEE. (2017). Social Implications of IoT Technology. Retrieved July 9, 2018, from
http://transmitter.ieee.org/social-implications-iot-technology/
Intersoft Consulting. (2018). Art.22 GDPR- Automated Individual Decision-making including
Profiling. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/
Intersoft Consulting. (2018). Article 20 - Right to Data Portability. Retrieved July 10, 2018,
from https://gdpr-info.eu/art-20-gdpr/
Laplante, P. A., & Laplante, N. (2016). The Internet of Things in Healthcare - Potential
Applications and Challenges. (I. Bojanova, Ed.) IT Pro, 2-3.
Lee, K. (2015). Healthcare IoT security issues: Risks and what to do about them. Retrieved
July 10, 2018, from https://internetofthingsagenda.techtarget.com/feature/HealthcareIoT-security-issues-Risks-and-what-to-do-about-them
Lee, K. (2015). What's the potential of pairing data analytics and IoT in healthcare?
Retrieved July 20, 2018, from
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 January 2020
doi:10.20944/preprints202001.0359.v1
https://internetofthingsagenda.techtarget.com/answer/Whats-the-potential-of-pairingdata-analytics-and-IoT-in-healthcare
LeFebvre, R. (2018). Third-party app developers could be reading your Gmail. Retrieved
July 10, 2018, from https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/03/third-party-appdevelopers-reading-gmail/
legislation.gov.uk. (2018). Data Protection Act 2018. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/56/enacted
MacMillan, D. (2018). Tech’s ‘Dirty Secret’: The App Developers Sifting Through Your
Gmail. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/techs-dirty-secretthe-app-developers-sifting-through-your-gmail-1530544442
Meola, A. (2018). What is the Internet of Things (IoT)? Meaning Definition. Retrieved May
22, 2018, from http://www.businessinsider.com/internet-of-things-definition?IR=T
mhc.ie. (2014). The 'Internet of Things' - 10 Data Protection & Privacy Challenges.
Retrieved May 22, 2018, from https://www.mhc.ie/latest/blog/the-internet-of-things10-data-protection-and-privacy-challenges
Miorandi, D., Sicari, S., Pellegrini, F. d., & Chlamtac, I. (2012). Internet of Things: Vision,
Application & Research Challenges. Ad Hoc Networks, 10, 13.
Mittelstadt, B. (2017). Ethics of the health-related internet of things: a narrative review.
London: Springer.
Mittelstadt, B. (n.d.). Designing the Health-Related Internet of Things:. Information, 8(77), 5.
Neelam, S. (2017). Internet of Things in Healthcare. Kalskrona: Blekinge Institute of
Technology.
parliament.uk. (2015). The Internet of Things: Key issues for the 2015 Parliament. Retrieved
May 22, 2018, from https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/keyissues-parliament-2015/technology/internet-of-things/
Percival, J., & Hanson, J. (2006). Big brother or brave new world? Telecare and its
implications for older people’s independence and social inclusion. Critical Social
Policy, 26(4), 888-909.
Popescul, D., & Georgescu, M. (2013). Internet of Things - Some Ethical Issues. The USV
Annals of Economics and Public Administration , 13(2), 208.
Steciw, A. (2011). Insulin pump hack reveals lack of medical device security. Retrieved July
20, 2018, from https://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/healthitpulse/insulinpump-hack-reveals-lack-of-medical-device-security/
Tarouco, L. M., Bertholdo, L. M., Granville, L. Z., Arbiza, L. M., Carbone, F., Marotta, M.,
& Santanna, J. J. (2012). Internet of Things in Healthcare : Interoperability &
Security Issues. Porto Alegre, Brazil: Institute of Informatics.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 January 2020
doi:10.20944/preprints202001.0359.v1
The British Computer Society. (2015). Trustee Board Regulations - Schedule 3 Code of
Conduct for BCS Members. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from
https://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/conduct.pdf
Twentyman, J. (2017). GDPR could have connected healthcare providers feeling queasy in
2018. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from https://internetofbusiness.com/gdpr-connectedhealthcare-providers-feeling-queasy-2018/
Weaver, K. T. (2014). Smart Grid Awareness. Retrieved July 8, 2018, from
https://smartgridawareness.org/2014/11/03/smart-meter-privacy-invasions-notjustified/
Zhu, M., & Zhan, R. (2017). China: Big Data Policy And Legal Issues In The Healthcare
Industry . Retrieved July 10, 2018, from
http://www.mondaq.com/china/x/557158/Healthcare/Big+Data+Policy+And+Legal+I
ssues+In+The+Healthcare+Industry